Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTPM - Josh's take "The DNC/HFA Agreement & Donna Braziles Growing Pile of Nonsense"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-dnchfa-agreement-donna-braziles-growing-pile-of-nonsenseBy JOSH MARSHALL Published NOVEMBER 4, 2017 4:26 PM
0Views
Last night NBC published the DNC/Clinton campaign memo that Donna Brazile was apparently referring to. Its not actually the Joint Fundraising Agreement. Its a side agreement. But thats just a semantic distinction. Heres my take on where this new revelation leaves the story.
Reviewing the document, I think its a fair read the the Clinton campaign wanted control over things during the general election. Thats fair and normal. But they also wanted control over the building of the what they expected to inherit for the general election once Clinton became the nominee. Thats not unreasonable in itself. But that also meant having a veto power over things that were happening during the primaries, particularly hiring of key staff. So while the document says explicitly that these agreements apply exclusively to the general election, the Clinton campaign was also getting veto rights over organizational decisions during the primaries, even if they werent about the primaries.
There are also lines in the agreement about the campaigns rights to review emails that went out about any primary candidate. That might create more control. But its not clear to me what that amounted to in practice. Those parts arent entirely clear to me.
The upshot is that this is significantly different from what Donna Brazile claimed in the book excerpt published in Politico. But it also includes levels of control pre-general election that would have have as a surprise to many. Its a surprise to me. As I wrote in yesterdays post, theres nothing here that remotely qualifies as rigging the election. That is inflammatory talk and frankly a smear. Just why Brazile went that route I do not know and dont care to speculate. But she did everyone involved a grave disservice by being willfully misleading, deeply self-serving and inflaming already existing divisions in the party that will be hard to repair as it is.
______________________
snip - much more at the link
at the every end - last sentence
++++++++++++
It is a genuine shame that someone like Donna Brazile, who has worked so hard and so consistently in Democratic politics for decades, has now chosen to make it all about herself.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1101 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TPM - Josh's take "The DNC/HFA Agreement & Donna Braziles Growing Pile of Nonsense" (Original Post)
NRaleighLiberal
Nov 2017
OP
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)1. Never forget - she picked Joe Lieberman as Gore's running mate. nt
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)4. She took credit (blame) for it right after he gave that speech
at the Republican National Convention.
dsc
(52,166 posts)5. It was his choice
even if she advocated for it, even if it was her idea, he was the final person who did it. Incidentally, I don't think it was a bad choice then, no one knew that Lieberman would go full idiot after 9/11.
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)6. Agrree, it was ultimately Al's choice.
I didn't like the choice because I was still irked at Joe for taking to the Senate floor to denounce Clinton in the run-up to the Impeachment vote. Joe seemed to change his mind at the last minute and eventually voted not guilty but he milked it for attention. The choice of Joe indicated early that Al was running away from Clinton.
AJT
(5,240 posts)2. I am going to guess that this leopard hasn't changed her spots.
She has probably always been about herself and herself alone. She is just an opportunist who has been using the Democratic party for her own gain.